Ex Parte Iyer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11327930 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/327,930 01/09/2006 Subramanyam A. Iyer ITL.0909D1US (P15301D) 4304
21906 7590 03/26/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
BLUM, DAVID S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SUBRAMANYAM A. IYER, JUSTIN K. BRASK, and
VIJAYAKUMAR S. RAMACHANDRARAO
____________________

Appeal 2009-010446
Application 11/327,930
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010446
Application 11/327,930

2
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-19 (Final Action 2-5). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants claim systems for controlling semiconductor processing,
e.g., etching. These systems detect process progress, which progress is
dependent on applied radiant energy, and then alter applied radiant energy in
response to the detected progress (Abstract). The below reproduced claim 1
is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An article comprising a medium storing instructions that enable a
processor-based system to:
detect a condition on a semiconductor wafer; and
in response to the detection of a condition, alter the exposure of the
wafer to radiant energy.
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Sun (US 2002/0104269 A1; Aug. 8, 2002) and
Cady (US 4,544,446; Oct. 1, 1985) (Final Action 2-5).
Issue
Has the Examiner erred, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), in rejecting
independent claims 1, 6, and 13 over Sun and Cady? (See App. Br. 11-12.)

Appeal 2009-010446
Application 11/327,930

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Based on our review, we agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner’s identified findings regarding Sun’s teachings that are mapped to
claim limitations (Ans. 3-4).
2. Cady discloses directing a light beam onto a top surface of a
semiconductor wafer where chemical reactions occur so that reflected light
is directed through a semi-reflective mirror to a detector. “The detector
monitors the extent of reaction on the wafer to permit precise control of the
reaction times and the reaction compositions” (col. 10, ll. 6-11; Fig. 13A;
see also Ans. 4).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 13 was
reviewed in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred (App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 1). Appellants’ contentions and arguments are
unavailing.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in concluding that the pending
claims are obvious because independent claim 1 and also substantively
independent claims 6 and 13 “call[] for detecting a condition on the
semiconductor wafer and altering exposure” (App. Br. 12). Appellants
argue that “[t]his is impossible in Cady or even the combination of Cady and
Sun because exposure and detection do not occur at the same time” (id.).
Reviewing the record, and applying ordinary and accustomed term
meanings in light of the Specification, we agree with at least Appellants’
Appeal 2009-010446
Application 11/327,930

4
asserted construction for claims 1, 6, and 13 as covering structures detecting
conditions on wafer surfaces and altering irradiation exposures.1 We,
however, disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner’s
identified combination of Sun and Cady (Ans. 4-5) somehow dictates
separation of exposure and detection to occur at different times.
The Examiner finds Sun teaches limitations recited in claims 1, 6, and
13 (Ans. 3-4; accord FF 1) except for “a detector for detecting an ending
condition of the etch, and a termination of the radiant energy source (which
necessitates a varying of the intensity of the source) specifically in response
to the endpoint detection” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds these limitations
taught in Cady (id.).
Appellants contend Cady teaches irradiation and measurement as
occurring at different times (App. Br. 11) and, therefore, Cady fails to teach
the claimed subject matter (App. Br. 12). Appellants’ conclusion appears to
be premised from multiple different Cady embodiments, whereas the
Examiner identifies the Cady embodiment shown in Figure 13A and
described at column 10, lines 1-30 (see Ans. 4). We find Appellants’
conclusion not persuasive because Appellants are silent concerning Cady’s
disclosure for illuminating a wafer surface and then directing reflected light
to a detector to monitor reactions on the wafer (FF 2). On its face this

1 Examined “claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent
with the specification,” In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
while “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification,” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997), and without reading limitations from examples given in the
specification into the claims, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
Appeal 2009-010446
Application 11/327,930

5
disclosure plainly teaches concurrent illumination and measurement by
directing reflected light from a semi-reflective mirror to a detector. This
disclosure is cited by the Examiner as supporting evidence relied on for the
concluding that claims are rendered obvious by combining Sun and Cady
(Ans. 4-5).
Appellants also argue that “[p]resumably . . . if one tried to measure
and irradiate at the same time, the measurement would be swamped by
noise” (App. Br. 11). First, Appellants rely on attorney argument and
provide no convincing evidence verifying that concurrent irradiation and
measurement must be precluded by noise. Second, Appellants contend the
rejected claims exclude turning off the irradiation source to make
measurements (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 1), but Appellants are silent as to
how or why the claimed apparatuses address the asserted noise problem (see
Ans. 8).
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
argued claims 1, 6, and 13, and we also will sustain the rejection of claims 2-
5, 7-12, and 14-19 that are not separately argued.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc